Wired, trying to get you to click through their nonsense content (I call it nontent) because clicks on ads equal money, and like all media nowadays they make it attractive to the curious reader by using hyperboles and exaggerations, and by focusing on panic, fear and (commonly but not in this case) conflict. It's the stuff that sells.
But there's more: as a free bonus, without qualms they tell you how hilarious and foolish "the Internet responds" (yeah right) to trivial stuff like the BBC being down. And these people have the audacity to call themselves journalists.
They should be ashamed of themselves and my suggestion is: don't read this stuff when even the title is this obviously clickbaity. They have been spoiled enough, the quality is abhorrent. Best thing you can do in my opinion is adblock, adblock, adblock.
It just what "news" or "content" is these days--repeating what others said on twitter. Their conundrum is do they post what little might be said sooner to be the first or wait a little for shit to really kick off. I will admit that I went to see if there was an archive of this story (there is) before posting (and I looked at it).
> Best thing you can do in my opinion is adblock, adblock, adblock.
I already do. No whitelisting, no exceptions, and I keep an eye out for sponsored posts and native advertising.
One important part of the UK's nuclear strategy is that the UK Trident warheads don't have PALs - the crews have everything they need to launch. The reasoning behind this being that, in the dark days of the Cold War, it was expected that there wouldn't be enough time to transmit an authorization message in the time between a nuclear strike being detected and the weapons detonating so any retaliation would be based purely on the judgement of the crews on the subs:
It’s well attested that the people in charge of the Minuteman missle systems had the same concerns & set the PAL codes on all the missiles to 000000.
Given the time it happened (about midnight UK time today), I can't imagine there are many people IN the UK who were exactly hysterical. A lot more people would be in bed at that time than browsing the BBC's website...
Then again, this sort of article is exactly what's wrong with the media at the moment. Forget real stories, let's just take random minor issues and make them sound bigger by quoting random people on social media sites.
But there's more: as a free bonus, without qualms they tell you how hilarious and foolish "the Internet responds" (yeah right) to trivial stuff like the BBC being down. And these people have the audacity to call themselves journalists.
They should be ashamed of themselves and my suggestion is: don't read this stuff when even the title is this obviously clickbaity. They have been spoiled enough, the quality is abhorrent. Best thing you can do in my opinion is adblock, adblock, adblock.